Yay! It's not that I'm dumb!

But actually I thought of this: " [...]voice exists as a marker of, or a fetishized substitute for, our imagination of an Other’s subjectivity."
as meaning that when you talk, you are doing so in relation to how you think the other person thinks. For example, you'll talk differently with your friends than you do with a teacher.

But that's nothing insightful, that's common sense. I guess I mistook finally deciphering something with something that was revolutionarily philosophical or something.

showing off their abilities to string together lots of long words into complex sentences

Totally. A lot of the sentences were very unnecessarily long, where i had to re-read it like 5 times.
e.g.- This is one sentence:
"To begin, we must acknowledge that, although scholars can certainly talk about ‘types’ of voice, from ‘head’ and ‘throat’ to ‘chest’, and we can clearly also talk about the use of the technical processes involved in the learning and management of the various styles of vocal production, the scholarly community none the less seems almost pathologically unwilling to address the question raised by this article: how does the sound of the voice itself mean, or, to put it another way, how does the sound of the voice impact upon, shape, or otherwise intervene in, the construction of meaning?"



But it really makes you think. Are there are people that actually understand this? Without having to read it several times. And if so, how do these people think?
Some of this kind of strange academic writing seems to have a lot of fodder which just describes everyday life as some extremely abstract and complex thing. (I think that's part of postmodern philosophy or something.) It's as though these people are aliens observing "regular humans" or something.
(Which is one of the reasons I'm drawn to it, it's a fun way to confuse your friends when just talking about simple things like talking. It like subverts everyday life.)

[insert signature here]